Excommunication for Heresy

[Gavroche]

I was hoping someone could shed some light on canon law when it comes to excommunication for heresy and even apostasy.

Concerning this, canon law states: Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.

Now I know excommunication does not pertain to private views that are not manifested to anyone else, for it says in Canon Law:

• Can. 1330 A delict which consists in a declaration or in another manifestation of will, doctrine, or knowledge must not be considered completed if no one perceives the declaration or manifestation.*

However, in my past, particularly in moments of spiritual turmoil or in a crisis of faith I fear I may have said things to others that contradicted teachings of the Church perhaps knowing they were contrary to the church. And in the past I think I read about automatic excommunications for heresy/apostasy/and schism once, but it was something I never paid much attention to and so it was just forgotten in the back of my mind. And more recently I have “re-learned” that automatic excommunication is applied to those who manifest the formal sin of heresy. I know that canon law stipulates that no one is punished with the penalty of excommunication if they did not know they were breaking a canonical law, but this is a bit hazy to me because, I’m not exactly sure what I knew and when I knew it.

Canon Law states the following as some mitigating circumstances (I’ve edited out other considerations I don’t feel apply to my situation but you can find the full text here: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P4W.HTM) :

*Can. 1321 §1. No one is punished unless the external violation of a law or precept, committed by the person, is gravely imputable by reason of malice or negligence.

§2. A penalty established by a law or precept binds the person who has deliberately violated the law or precept; however, a person who violated a law or precept by omitting necessary diligence is not punished unless the law or precept provides otherwise.

…
…

Can. 1323 The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:

2/ a person who without negligence was ignorant that he or she violated a law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance;

Can. 1324 §1. The perpetrator of a violation is not exempt from a penalty, but the penalty established by law or precept must be tempered or a penance employed in its place if the delict was committed:

9/ by a person who without negligence did not know that a penalty was attached to a law or precept;

Can. 1325 Crass, supine, or affected ignorance can never be considered in applying the prescripts of cann. ⇒ 1323 and ⇒ 1324; likewise drunkenness or other disturbances of mind cannot be considered if they are sought deliberately in order to commit or excuse a delict, nor can passion which is voluntarily stimulated or fostered.*

In regards to the bolded portions, these seem to be the areas of concern to me. In regards to whether or not I knew I was violating a law or precept… I doubt it, but I don’t know for sure. I mean, what Catholic doesn’t know that one could potentially be excommunicated for heresy? I knew this much, but in these moments I don’t think I was cognoscente of the fact that I broke a canon law, (if I even did at all) it just wasn’t something I would have been mindful of, I may have been concerned about the sinfulness of my actions, but I certainly wasn’t wondering about the canonical legality of my actions.

And with the second portion that says someone who without negligence is not punished if they were unaware a penalty was attached to a law or precept. This also confuses me, like I said in the previous paragraph, I knew someone could potentially be excommunicated for heresy, but by no means did I think that you could automatically excommunicate yourself by just articulating a heretical view in a private conversation. I thought excommunication for heresy was something that had to be directly stated so that the heretic would know about it. So maybe I knew that one could be penalized with excommunication if they committed heresy, but I didn’t know the penalty was automatic excommunication. So If I was ignorant of this, would I still be under the penalty because maybe I knew there was “A” potential penalty, but I didn’t know that “THE” penalty was AUTOMATIC?

I’m also wondering whether my ignorance is legitimate and not negligent, crass or supine. Like I said at the beginning of the post, I read about automatic excommunications once, a few years ago I think, and just never retained that information, it wasn’t something I made a note of to remember because I probably never thought such a thing would apply to me. Does forgetfullness count as legitimate ignorance?

All I know is that prior to learning about all of this, the thought of me being excommunicated never even crossed my mind, I was going about my business, going to confession periodically without this concern, attending Mass weekly. And so essentially I’m wondering about my status, and it is quite troublesome. If I have been excommunicated this whole time and not been aware of it, does it mean all of my previous confessions are invalid? I certainly hope not. But then again this is a whole other issue I wish there was clarification on. If a person who was automatically excommunicated, and later lost knowledge of this fact, and repented and went to confession, but never had the excommunicated lifted, (if the confessor unkowingly did not have the faculties to do so) does this mean their reception of this sacrament and others was totally invalid, or just illicit, but still valid?

 

[Cid]

I am sorry that you are having this worry. I would speak to a priest. I hope that somebody on this forum can give more information.

However, I rejoice with you that you have had this change of heart which has lead you the place you are today. Well done!

 

[Zekariya]

Take this to confession.

‎"All mortal sins are to be submitted to the keys of the Church and all can be forgiven; but recourse to these keys is the only, the necessary, and the certain way to forgiveness. Unless those who are guilty of grievous sin have recourse to the power of the keys, they cannot hope for eternal salvation. Open your lips, them, and confess your sins to the priest. Confession alone is the true gate to Heaven." - St Augustine of Hippo, Christian Combat

 

[dans0622]

…
However, in my past, particularly in moments of spiritual turmoil or in a crisis of faith I fear I may have said things to others that contradicted teachings of the Church perhaps knowing they were contrary to the church. …

If a person who was automatically excommunicated, and later lost knowledge of this fact, and repented and went to confession, but never had the excommunicated lifted, (if the confessor unkowingly did not have the faculties to do so) does this mean their reception of this sacrament and others was totally invalid, or just illicit, but still valid?

Hello,

Recall that heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith (c. 751). Such truths are limited to those which have been declared to be divinely revealed by the Church (c. 750.1). From what you say, it is not clear that you were obstinately denying or doubting anything nor is it clear that your statements were related to matters of divine revelation. An apostate is someone who totally repudiates the Christian faith (c. 751). I don’t think that applies to you.

If a person is actually excommunicated and forgot about it or, for whatever reason, never had it remitted, but then made an honest, integral confession–the absolution could be valid. The law does not say that an excommunicated person invalidly (attempts to) receive(s) Sacraments, only that reception of the Sacraments is forbidden (c. 1331). Why? Because a person who is excommunicated is presumed to be in a state of defiance toward God and not have a proper disposition to receive the Sacraments. For that person to try to receive the Sacraments would amount to sacrilege. You did not seem to be in that state.

Ordinarily, of course, the penalty should be removed before receiving a Sacrament since it is a clear sign that the person is properly disposed.

I hope this helps you.

Dan